Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Key Competencies Determining Entrepreneurial Intention in Peruvian Secondary Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the issue of sustainable entrepreneurship. In their article, the authors presented key competencies determining entrepreneurial intention in Peruvian secondary school students. The main comments that can contribute to improving the quality of the article:

1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified (in the Introduction). It should be remembered that the analysis cannot be the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study may be to compare phenomena, assess a phenomenon, find relationships, etc. Analysis is a generally understood methodology of assignment.

2. In the Introduction, it should be written what new research presented contributes to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their work.

3. The authors did not state when the study was conducted. The year (or years) in which the respondents answered the survey questions should be provided.

4. The structure of the respondents by gender, age, and possibly place of residence was not provided. At the moment, it is only known that the sample consisted of 305 students, distributed between 205 from Chepén and 100 from Pacasmayo.

5. The structure of the article should be improved. At the moment, the individual sections are too divided.

a) Most of the subheadings in the Materials and methods, Results sections are unnecessary.

b) Sections 6. Recommendations and 7. Concluding Remarks should be merged with section 5. Conclusions.

6. Tables and figures should be referred to in the appropriate places in the text.

7. References should be formatted according to the Sustainability journal guidelines.

8. In line 225, the word "y" should be replaced with "and".

Author Response

1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified (in the Introduction and Abstract). It should be remembered that the analysis cannot be the purpose of the The purpose of the study can be to compare phenomena, assess a phenomenon, find relationships, etc. Analysis is a generally understood methodology of giving.

From the Abstract:

"This study aims to compare the level of entrepreneurial competence and entrepreneurial intention among fifth-year high school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo, Peru, as well as to identify the entrepreneurial competencies that significantly influence entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, it seeks to examine the moderating role of self-assessment of entrepreneurial capabilities and the perception of risk in starting a business in the relationship between competencies and entrepreneurial intention."

From the Introduction:

"Based on these considerations, the present study has the following objectives:

To compare the level of entrepreneurial competence among fifth-year high school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo, To compare the level of entrepreneurial intention among fifth-year high school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo, To identify the entrepreneurial competencies that significantly influence entrepreneurial intention, To examine the moderating role of self-assessment of entrepreneurial capabilities and the perception of risk in starting a business in the relationship between competencies and entrepreneurial intention"

These statements clearly outline the purpose of the study, which is to compare phenomena (levels of entrepreneurial competence and intention between two groups), identify relationships (between competencies and intention), and assess moderating factors. The analysis is presented as the methodology to achieve these objectives, not as the purpose itself.

 

2. In the Introduction, it should be written what new the presented study brings to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their

 

 

This study makes several novel contributions to the field of entrepreneurial education. Firstly, it specifically focuses on high school students in Peru, a demographic group and geographical context that have been understudied in the literature on entrepreneurial intention. Most previous research has centered on university students or established entrepreneurs, overlooking the crucial stage of adolescence where key attitudes and skills for future professional development are formed [13], [14]. Secondly, this study compares two distinct provinces (Chepén and Pacasmayo), allowing for the identification of possible regional disparities in the formation of entrepreneurial competencies and intentions, an aspect little explored in previous studies. Furthermore, the study examines not only the relationship between competencies and entrepreneurial intention but also the moderating role of self-assessment of entrepreneurial capabilities and risk perception, thus providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing the formation of entrepreneurial intention. Finally, the results of this study have the potential to inform the design of more effective and contextualized educational programs, tailored to the specific needs of high school students in different regions of Peru, thus contributing to the development of a sustainable entrepreneurial culture from an early age"

 

 

3. The title is too long. Consider shortening

 

Reduced.

 

4. The authors did not state when the study was conducted. The year (or years) in which the respondents answered the survey questions should be provided.

 

The surveys were administered to students in December 2023, almost at the end of the school academic year.

 

5. The structure of respondents by gender, age, and possibly place of residence was not At the moment, all we know is that the sample consisted of 305 students, distributed between 205 from Chepén and 100 from Pacasmayo.

 

"Materials and methods":

"The study sample consisted of 305 fifth-year high school students, distributed between 205 from Chepén and 100 from Pacasmayo. Regarding gender distribution, 55% of the respondents were female and 45% were male. The age of the participants ranged from 15 to 17 years, with an average age of 16 years. In terms of place of residence, 35% of the students resided in urban areas, while 65% came from rural areas"

 

6. The structure of the article should be improved. At the moment, the individual sections are too divided.

 

 

1. Most of the subtitles in the Materials and methods, Results sections are

 

Reduced.

 

6. Sections 6. Recommendations and 7. Concluding Remarks should be merged with section 5. Conclusions.

 

I understand your suggestion to merge the Conclusions, Recommendations, and Final Observations sections, but allow me to explain why I consider it crucial to keep these sections separate in our study.

The current structure of the article reflects a deliberate decision based on best academic practices in the field of entrepreneurship and education. High-impact journals such as the Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice often favor this separation, as it allows for a clear and differentiated presentation of empirical findings, their practical implications, and their broader context.

In the specific case of our research on entrepreneurial education in Peru, this structure becomes even more relevant. The context of a developing country requires a nuanced approach that clearly distinguishes between what we have discovered (Conclusions), how it can be applied (Recommendations), and how it fits into the broader academic and practical landscape (Final Observations).

 

7. Tables and figures should be referred to in the appropriate places in the

 

Resolved

 

8. Is the text (Disclaimer/) on line 744 necessary?

 

resolved

 

 

9. References should be formatted according to the guidelines of the journal

 

resolved

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached my comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 review report

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this manuscript on entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention formation: A comparative analysis of sustainable economic development in secondary school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo, Peru. While the topic addressed is of great scientific interest, the manuscript contains a number of weak points that require particular attention.

 

1. Please avoid indicating β-values and significance levels in the

 

retired

 

 

 

2. In lines 33-35, it is stated that "In the current global context, characterized by increasing competitiveness and dynamism, entrepreneurship has emerged as a fundamental driver of economic development and job creation". Please provide supportive references.

 

In the current global context characterized by increasing competitiveness and dynamism, entrepreneurship has emerged as a fundamental driver of economic development and job creation. This problem is reflected in various international studies, which indicate that while there is growing interest in entrepreneurship, many young people lack the skills and knowledge necessary to turn their ideas into sustainable businesses [2], [3]

 

3. It is necessary to include a specific section dealing with the literature review and hypotheses development. This should provide a detailed explanation of the mobilized theory and justify the hypotheses selected based on previous

 

I understand your observation about the need for a specific literature review and hypothesis development section. However, I would like to point out that our article does address these aspects, albeit not in the traditional format you suggest.

In the Introduction section, we provide a substantial review of relevant literature, covering topics such as entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial competencies, and entrepreneurial intention. This review extends from the paragraph beginning with "Various researchers have explored the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and the intention to undertake them in different contexts" to the end of the section.

Regarding hypothesis development, these are implicitly presented throughout the literature review and are formalized in the Materials and Methods section, specifically in Table 5 titled "Classification of research hypotheses" and in Table 6 "Contrasting the research hypotheses".

Our approach integrates the literature review, theoretical framework, and hypothesis development into a cohesive narrative that flows directly into our research objectives. This method is consistent with the practices of several high-impact journals in the field of entrepreneurship, which favor a more fluid and less compartmentalized presentation of these elements.

Here's a relevant paragraph from the Introduction section that demonstrates our approach to literature review and hypothesis development:

"Various researchers have explored the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and the intention to undertake them in different contexts. Bazkiaei et al. [15] reported that entrepreneurial education and personality traits positively influence the entrepreneurial intention of university students. Similarly, Hoang et al. [16] highlighted the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and resilience in this relationship. Cui et al. [17] noted that previous work experience and learning approaches influence the development of competencies and the intention to undertake them."

This paragraph demonstrates how we integrate literature review with the implicit development of our research hypotheses, providing a foundation for our study's objectives and methodology.

 

 

4. In the measurement instruments subsection, the authors explain the measurement scales without any justification related to previous works. It is necessary to justify the chosen items based on literature.

 

You're right to point out that the justification for our measurement scales could be more explicitly linked to previous research. While we did provide some information about the validation process, we could indeed strengthen this section by more clearly referencing the literature that informed our choice of items.

In the current version, we have this paragraph in the Measurement Instruments subsection:

"A structured questionnaire measuring various dimensions of entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial competencies was used for data collection. The questionnaire covered entrepreneurial intention (16 items), which included items that assessed three subdimensions: personal attitudes toward entrepreneurship (5 items), perceived behavior (6 items), and entrepreneurial intention (5 items). Entrepreneurial Competencies (72 items): This dimension was divided into eight subdimensions: problem solving (14 items), networking (14 items), achievement orientation (7 items), conflict resolution (10 items), teamwork (12 items), creativity (20 items), initiative (11 items), and autonomy (8 items)."

To address your concern, we could expand this section to include justifications based on previous literature. For example, we could add:

"The items for entrepreneurial intention were adapted from Liñán and Chen's (2009) Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire, which has been widely used and validated in various cultural contexts. The entrepreneurial competencies items were based on the EntreComp framework developed by Bacigalupo et al. (2016) for the European Commission, which provides a comprehensive and well-established model of entrepreneurial competencies. Specific items for each competency were further informed by works such as Man et al. (2002) for problem-solving and networking, McClelland (1961) for achievement orientation, and Amabile (1996) for creativity."

This addition would provide a stronger foundation for our choice of measurement items, grounding them in established literature in the field of entrepreneurship research.

 

 

 

 

5. Please provide more details about the data collection

 

I appreciate your request for more details about the data. Our study utilized a robust dataset collected from 305 fifth-year high school students, with 205 from Chepén and 100 from Pacasmayo, selected through stratified random sampling. The sample was diverse, with 55% female and 45% male participants, aged between 15 and 17 years (average age 16), representing both urban (35%) and rural (65%) areas. We employed a comprehensive structured questionnaire to measure entrepreneurial intention (16 items across three subdimensions) and entrepreneurial competencies (72 items across eight subdimensions). The data collection process was rigorous, involving expert validation of the questionnaire, application in selected educational institutions with proper consent, and digitization for analysis. We implemented controls to minimize biases and ensure data quality. The analysis involved various quality and robustness tests, including reliability and validity evaluations of the constructs and assessment of the theoretical model's fit to the observed data. We used advanced statistical techniques, including structural equation modeling with SMARTPLS, which allowed for effective analysis even with our sample size. The results section provides detailed statistics, including descriptive data, model fit indices, and construct reliability and validity values, offering a comprehensive view of our data and analysis outcomes. This thorough approach to data collection, processing, and analysis ensures the robustness and reliability of our findings, providing a solid foundation for our conclusions about entrepreneurial competencies and intentions among Peruvian high school students.

 

6. on procedure, such as the duration of data collection, the time frame, the techniques used,

 

 

 

Resolved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. It is disappointing that the study's limitations were highlighted in the methodology section. These should be incorporated at the end of the manuscript in the limitations and

 

Resolved.

 

8. The results should be organized following the mobilized PLS-SEM

 

You're correct to point out this observation. Upon reviewing the document, I can confirm that the results are indeed organized following the PLS-SEM approach. Here's a summary of how the results are presented, which aligns with typical PLS-SEM reporting:

 

1. The document first presents an assessment of the measurement model, including reliability and validity tests:

 

"To ensure the validity and reliability of the results obtained in the entrepreneurial intention model, various quality and robustness tests were conducted. These tests include the evaluation of the reliability and validity of the constructs used, as well as the fit of the theoretical model to the observed data."

 

2. It then provides detailed tables showing Cronbach's alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Omega, and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) for each construct, which are standard measures in PLS-SEM.

 

3. The document also presents model fit indices, including Chi-Square, CFI, GFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR.

 

4. The structural model results are then presented, including path coefficients and p-values for each hypothesized relationship:

 

"Path values and p values were calculated for each proposed relationship in the model, allowing for the determination of the significance of each hypothesis."

 

5. These results are summarized in Table 6, which shows the status of each hypothesis based on the PLS-SEM analysis.

 

6. The document also includes a visual representation of the research model with path coefficients (Figure 2).

 

This organization follows the standard two-step approach in PLS-SEM: first assessing the measurement model, then evaluating the structural model. Therefore, I believe we have adequately addressed this aspect of the PLS-SEM approach in our results presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. In lines 359-361 « To this end, a theoretical model has been developed that integrates various entrepreneurial competencies and capacities, evaluating their direct and moderating impacts on the intention to undertake ». I have to ask which model you have developed, knowing that you have not included any

 

I apologize for the confusion. You're right to point out this inconsistency. Upon closer examination, I realize that the statement about developing a theoretical model is not accurately represented in the paper. Let me clarify:

The model we used is actually based on existing literature and established theories, particularly Ajzen's theory of planned behavior, which is mentioned earlier in the paper:

"The study is based on Ajzen's theory of planned behavior."

We should revise the sentence you highlighted to more accurately reflect our approach. A more appropriate statement would be:

"To this end, we applied an established theoretical model based on Ajzen's theory of planned behavior, integrating various entrepreneurial competencies and examining their direct and moderating impacts on entrepreneurial intention."

This revision acknowledges that we're building on existing theoretical frameworks rather than developing a new model. It also aligns better with the literature review provided earlier in the paper, where we discuss various studies that have explored the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and intentions.

We appreciate your keen observation, as it helps us improve the accuracy and clarity of our research presentation. In future revisions, we will ensure that our language more precisely reflects our use of established theoretical models and literature.

 

 

10. Please revise the table 7 title.

 

Resolved

 

 

11. The discussions and recommendations sections have been organized in bullet points. They need to be rewritten as full text with a clearly structured flow of

 

The use of bullet points in our discussions and recommendations sections was a deliberate choice aimed at enhancing clarity and accessibility for readers. This format allows for a concise presentation of key ideas, making it easier for readers to quickly grasp the main points and implications of our research.

 

In academic writing, especially in fields like entrepreneurship education where practical applications are crucial, there's a growing trend towards more reader-friendly formats. For instance, the Journal of Business Venturing Insights, a respected publication in our field, encourages "shorter, more focused papers" that prioritize clarity and impact.

 

Moreover, bullet points can be particularly effective in summarizing complex research findings and their implications, as noted by Sword (2012) in her book "Stylish Academic Writing". She argues that strategic use of such formatting can enhance comprehension and retention of key information.

 

However, we acknowledge that preferences for article structure can vary among journals and reviewers. If a more traditional narrative format is preferred, we are certainly willing to revise these sections accordingly. Our primary goal is to communicate our findings and recommendations effectively, and we're open to adjusting our presentation style to best serve this purpose.

 

In any case, the content and substance of our discussions and recommendations remain robust, grounded in our research findings and relevant literature. The current format was chosen to highlight these key points, but we can certainly elaborate them into a more narrative structure if that is deemed more appropriate.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been corrected in accordance with the reviewer's comments.

Author Response

The article has been corrected in accordance with the reviewer's comments.
OK!

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made considerable efforts to enhance the manuscript, but there remain a number of issues that need to be addressed, as follows:

1. Surprisingly, the authors introduced the in-text citation [2] first in the abstract (Line 11). I highly suggest preparing citations using a reference management software, such as Mendeley or Zotero.

2. Please provide a supporting reference for lines 37-39 “In the current global context, characterized by increasing competitiveness and dynamisms, entrepreneurship has emerged as a fundamental driver of economic development and job creation”. The in-text citation [1] (Line 42) applies to the second paragraph (Lines 39-42).

3. Please avoid using the same section number for two distinct sections, such as "2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development" and "2. Materials and Methods".

4. There is an inconsistency between what is stated in the literature review and what is shown in Table 5. In line 234, H1 refers to the link between Creativity and entrepreneurial intention, whereas in Table 1, this hypothesis reflects the association between Problem resolution and Entrepreneurial intention. The hypotheses listed in Table 1 should be fully justified in the literature review section.

5. In lines 275-277, the authors mentioned that “Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques, including moderation analysis, were used through the SMARTPLS program to test causal relationships”. The mention of SmartPLS software doesn't specify which modeling method was used. It's important to point out that SEM with SmartPLS can apply to either PLS-SEM or CB-SEM, as the most recent version of this software supports both approaches to data analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly specify the modeling method used.

6. Additional criteria, such as R², f², and Q², must be included to evaluate the structural model.

All the best,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In several places, the authors employ Spanish, such as in Table 8 “Estado de la Hipótesis"; "Rechazado". I therefore strongly recommend professional proofreading of the entire manuscript.

Author Response

All observations were raised point by point as this in the revision of changes in Word

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript is now in its 3rd round of reviews. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to develop the paper, but unfortunately, there are still some revisions to address, as follows:

1.  In lines 181-182, the authors have inserted several in-text citations. Please revise.

2.   Authors are required to follow the journal's guidelines for the formatting and numbering of sections and subsections.

3.   The mention of SmartPLS software doesn't specify which modeling method was used. It's important to point out that SEM with SmartPLS can apply to either PLS-SEM or CB-SEM, as the most recent version of this software supports both approaches to data analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly specify the modeling method used.

All the best,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In several places, the authors employ Spanish, such as in Table 8 (Line 545) “Estado de la Hipótesis"; "Rechazado".

Please revise the text in lines 255-269.

I strongly recommend professional proofreading of the entire manuscript.

Author Response

1.  In lines 181-182, the authors have inserted several in-text citations. Please revise.

Currently there is only one citation, which is more than enough to convey the idea the authors want to convey.

2. Authors are required to follow the journal's guidelines for the formatting and numbering of sections and subsections.

Solved as reflected in the attached word

3. The mention of SmartPLS software doesn't specify which modeling method was used. It's important to point out that SEM with SmartPLS can apply to either PLS-SEM or CB-SEM, as the most recent version of this software supports both approaches to data analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly specify the modeling method used.

in the section: Materials and methods

In this research, a quantitative approach was adopted to analyze how entrepreneurial competencies influence the formation of entrepreneurial intention among high school students. Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques were employed using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) algorithm through SmartPLS software version 4.1.0.8 to test causal relationships and perform moderation analysis. The study used a non-experimental cross-sectional design, collecting data at a single point in time. This methodological approach allowed the assessment of entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intentions among two groups of students: one from the province of Chepén and the other from the province of Pacasmayo.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors presented the results of a comparative analysis of sustainable economic 3 development in secondary school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo (Peru). The authors analyzed entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention formation. The main comments that can contribute to improving the quality of the article:

1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified (in the Introduction and Abstract). It should be remembered that the analysis cannot be the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study can be to compare phenomena, assess a phenomenon, find relationships, etc. Analysis is a generally understood methodology of giving.

2. In the Introduction, it should be written what new the presented study brings to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their work.

3. The title is too long. Consider shortening it.

4. The authors did not state when the study was conducted. The year (or years) in which the respondents answered the survey questions should be provided.

5. The structure of respondents by gender, age, and possibly place of residence was not provided. At the moment, all we know is that the sample consisted of 305 students, distributed between 205 from Chepén and 100 from Pacasmayo.

6. The structure of the article should be improved. At the moment, the individual sections are too divided.

a) Most of the subtitles in the Materials and methods, Results sections are unnecessary.

b) Sections 6. Recommendations and 7. Concluding Remarks should be merged with section 5. Conclusions.

7. Tables and figures should be referred to in the appropriate places in the text.

8. Is the text (Disclaimer/) on line 744 necessary?

9. References should be formatted according to the guidelines of the journal Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this manuscript on entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention formation: A comparative analysis of sustainable economic development in secondary school students in Chepén and Pacasmayo, Peru. While the topic addressed is of great scientific interest, the manuscript contains a number of weak points that require particular attention.

1. Please avoid indicating β-values and significance levels in the abstract.

2. In lines 33-35, it is stated that "In the current global context, characterized by increasing competitiveness and dynamism, entrepreneurship has emerged as a fundamental driver of economic development and job creation".  Please provide supportive references.

3. It is necessary to include a specific section dealing with the literature review and hypotheses development. This should provide a detailed explanation of the mobilized theory and justify the hypotheses selected based on previous studies.

4. In the measurement instruments subsection, the authors explain the measurement scales without any justification related to previous works. It is necessary to justify the chosen items based on literature.

5. Please provide more details about the data collection procedure, such as the duration of data collection, the time frame, the techniques used, etc.

6. It is disappointing that the study's limitations were highlighted in the methodology section. These should be incorporated at the end of the manuscript in the limitations and perspectives.

7. The results should be organized following the mobilized PLS-SEM approach.

8. In lines 359-361 « To this end, a theoretical model has been developed that integrates various entrepreneurial competencies and capacities, evaluating their direct and moderating impacts on the intention to undertake ». I have to ask which model you have developed, knowing that you have not included any literature.

9. Please revise the table 7 title.

10. The discussions and recommendations sections have been organized in bullet points. They need to be rewritten as full text with a clearly structured flow of ideas.

I hope that these comments will help to improve your work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.